The Devil of Economic Fundamentalism Page 14
into the adroitly laid trap. They were made to believe that the household work they did was more ignoble and immaterial than the work in offices and other areas outside their houses. While serving the husbands and children was menial, serving the bosses as secretaries or public as receptionists and air-hostesses was admirable. Men could polish their clothes but if women cooked food for their families and cleansed their houses it would become an unbearable sight for the feminists. This is another matter that in practice women could never detach themselves from the management of the house and have befooled themselves by putting additional burden of earning on their shoulders.
The new developments have earned little benefit for women; they are in fact in a state of imbroglio. They have only succeeded in satisfying the ulterior motives of the forces of economics. First, women outside their houses are much easier prey for the jaguars of the Sex Industry whose middlemen and brokers, especially in the big cities, win over many of them through promises of money and glory for sex-related activities. Secondly, with the husbands and wives both working, they can save, after routine essential expenses, more money to purchase consumer items. Thirdly, the working women are expected to spend more on their clothes, cosmetics, perfumes, etc., than the housewives and would also require their own vehicles. Fourthly, with both the parents going to work, there is a greater scope for commercialisation of education (Nursery, Pre-nursery, Pre-prenursery schools, baby-sitters, etc.). Fifthly, the influence of such parents over their children is bound to diminish. Impoverished links between parents and children help the cause of the big business. Sixthly, the charm of lady receptionists, secretaries and salespersons is expected to attract more clients, thus increasing the financial prospects of the companies.
7.
Sex Industrialised
The feminist movements in the West and elsewhere had already spawned a socio-cultural milieu that encouraged women’s participation in social activities. Feminism had imbued their minds with a fallacious sense of euphoria over their newly found liberty and freedom. Freedom was too fantastic a slogan to resist and the prospects of riddance from the ennui of routine menagerie was a dream come true. Hardly did they realize that the freedom they were being made to achieve was but a mirage and the movement for women’s liberty was a calculated move initiated or supported by the cunning merchants. Having excelled in misusing fascination between men and women to further their business, it was now time to sexually abuse women for money. The economic fundamentalists had pretty well recognised the big potential of sex as market. The desire for cars, scooters, fashionable garments and other items of luxury could be wanting in a number of human beings but sex is a universal human urge and even the most pious tends to succumb to sexual advances of a member of the opposite, or to be currently more correct, the preferred sex. Man longs to have as many partners in bed as he can lay hands on. The immanence of this human tendency throughout the world is an irrefutable fact of life. The commercialisation of sex therefore was expected to generate massive dividends unparalleled in any other business. Furthermore, sex could be used for boosting other markets as well. Many stumbling blocks in the path of merchandising of sex had already been crushed or made defunct. The women were now willing to be active participants in any dispensation. Their longing for luxurious life was rapidly intensifying; they had smelled economic independence. Unfortunately however, women failed to exercise their wisdom in distinguishing between true freedom, which would elevate their social and economic status without turning them into victims of savage exploitation, and fake freedom, which was advertently inculcated in them by the merchants in order to expand their financial empires. Little did women understand that their personal rights would be used as instruments for their abuse!
The first necessity for the commercialisation of sex was that women must get accustomed to revealing their anatomy before others. This could not be accomplished overnight. The first step in that direction was popularisation of 'fashion' which soon became a word most dear to men and women of all ages and groups. Fashion as an industry developed leaps and bounds and corresponding to its growth the size and volume of clothes adored by women got shortened. Covering the heads had always been regarded both by men and women in almost all the faiths that flourished anywhere on the globe as a sign of virtue. It indicated the decency of personality and righteousness of character. Head-kerchief was the first casualty of the storm of fashion. This led to the display of dozens of attractive hairstyles. Then the arms and shoulders were bared and the neckline started descending. Skirts began to shrink and miniskirts and shorts steadily marked their presence on the fashion scene. Swimming suits were then popularised through sports--women had the right to play--and films. Within a short period of time the topless blondes and Negroes could be seen on hundreds of beaches all over the world. The business through beaches reached great heights. The nude poses of women--even an ugly woman could be made sexy by an expert photographer--started regularly appearing in some magazines and newspapers. The films excelled in showing them taking bath or changing clothes. The portrayal of sexual acts was soon to follow.
As discussed in the previous chapter, Purdah (veil) was the most abominable sight for the economic fundamentalists donning the garb of feminism. It must be clarified here that purdah (covering of body) was not limited to the Islamic world as is often believed. Almost all the races, communities and sects except some tribes insisted on covering most parts of the body. Women, especially belonging to the upper class, usually covered their heads and put an extra cloth on their bosoms. The difference in the case of Islam was that it had assumed the shape of burqua. The campaign of the pseudo feminists was therefore directed against all such societies that prescribed some code of dressing. How a woman reluctant even to show her face and hair could be persuaded to bare her breasts, thighs and buttocks! The unholy war against the 'veil' in the countries, where it was still in practice, got intensified. It was condemned as the greatest obstacle in the development of women. Acrimonious debates ensued in newspapers, magazines, social circles and public platforms. Army personnel and policemen could cover their bodies with thick uniform and head with heavy helmets and yet the heat in the atmosphere and density of clothes would not interfere in their normal functioning; advocates and judges could don jet black robes even at the height of rge summers and yet the travails of weather would not impede their work; doctors could put thick white aprons without feeling uncomfortable; nurses and nuns’ head-kerchiefs would not hinder their movements; bishops could perform all their celebrated duties wearing extra robes and covering their heads; but women’s freedom of movements would be severely jeopardised, the feminists argued, if they covered their body with some additional piece of cloth.
Nudity needed glorification in order to be popularised and the shame attached to it was to be mercilessly ravished if society had to “develop”. The “Operation Nudity” began with the glorification of nude paintings and graffiti. The artists who marvelled in eroticism were admired as some of the greatest artists of all times for the reason that their compositions were portrayals of “reality” and “beauty”. Films also started presenting woman in her full naked glory in the name of art or reality. The opponents were spurned as the enemies of truth and art. When the money poured in as the result of depiction of truth, truth was eulogized; when it required falsehood it was adored as a work of fiction or creative imagination. The press and the polity too did not lag behind in sensationalising sex. This was often done on the pretext of bringing to light sexual exploitation rampant in society.
Once the people became habitual of watching or perusing nakedness, the merchants of sex started glamorising woman’s body. The glorification of nakedness meant that women who did not hesitate in baring themselves before camera were showered upon with the glamorous epithets of “modern” and “ultramodern”, the scenes in which they appeared without giving trouble to a single piece of cloth or having sexual intimacy with an actor were hailed as “bold” shots. The part
y culture had already established itself as a sign of highest social status. The presence of gorgeous ladies in revealing costumes added colour and tempo to the get-togethers. The “bold” women continued to multiply in society as their “boldness” brought them fame and glory in addition to wealth. The fashion shows and beauty contests in which the contestants would bare their skin to the sheer delight of the spectators became commoner with every passing year. Such shows would earn the contestants a fortune; the organisers of these extravaganzas would make astronomical dollars and pounds. The Miss Universe and Miss World contests are now organised in different countries, annually. These mega events are telecast live almost all over the world. Pictures of the winners decorate the front pages of the major newspapers. In an obvious attempt to pacify the antagonists, the contestants are asked questions pertaining to their personal inclinations and thoughts. They often in order to arouse outbursts of clapping give answers laced with humanist sentiments. The replies to the